Bombay High Court
Rajeev Mehrotra vs Vijay Mandhayan And Anr on 8 January, 2024
Author: A. S. Gadkari
Bench: A. S. Gadkari
2024:BHC-AS:1362-DB
Manoj 210-wp-3093-2012.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 3093 OF 2012
Mr. Rajeev Mehrotra
Age 46 Years, Occu: Business
R/o. 174, B-Tower,
Kalpataru Horizon,
S.K. Ahire Marg,
Worli, Mumbai 400 018. .. Petitioner/
Ori. Accused No.1
Vs.
1. Vijay Mandhayan
Authorizedsignatory for
Edelweiss Financial Services Ltd.,
Delweis House, Off. C.S.T. Road,
Kalina, Mumbai 400 098.
2. The State of Maharashtra
Vide its C.R. No. 145 of 2012
Registered at
N.M. Joshi Marg Police Station
Mumbai 400 013. .. Respondents
Respondent No.1/
Org. Complainant
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 956 OF 2012
1. Harindra Singh, adult, Indian
Inhabitant, director of Percept Limited
Having his office address at P-22,
Level A3, Raghuvanshi Estate, 11/12,
Senapati Bapat Marg,
Lower Parel, Mumbai- 400013
2. Shailendra Singh, adult, Indian
Inhabitant, director of Percept Limited
Having his office Address at P-22,
Level A3, Raghuvanshi Estate, 11/12,
1/8
::: Uploaded on - 12/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2024 18:40:37 :::
Manoj 210-wp-3093-2012.doc
Senapati Bapat Marg,
Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013 .. Applicants
Vs.
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through the Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Mumbai ..
2. Vijay Mandhayan
Authorizedsignatory for
Edelweiss Financial Services Ltd.,
Delweis House, Off. C.S.T. Road,
Kalina, Mumbai 400 098. .. Respondent
Mr. Niteen Pradhan a/w Adv. S. S. Khot, Adv. Danish Patel & Shahen
Pradhan for the Petitioner.
Mr. Niranjan Mundargi a/w Ms. Keral Mehta Ms. Bhagyashree Lembhe, Mr.
Vidhur Mallotra i/b Naik & Naik & Co. for the Applicants.
Mr. V. B. Konde- Deshmukh APP for State.
CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND
SHYAM C. CHANDAK, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 4th DECEMBER, 2023.
PRONOUNCED ON : 8th JANUARY, 2024.
JUDGMENT:
[PER- SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.]
1) Present Petition is filed under Article 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure ('Cr.P.C.', for short) and the Application is filed under Section 482
of the Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the FIR being C.R.No.145 of 2012, registered
with N.M. Joshi Marg Police Station, Mumbai for the offences punishable
Manoj 210-wp-3093-2012.doc
under Sections 420, 465, 468, 469, 471 read with 120-B Indian Penal Code,
1960, and under Sections 66A, 66C and 66D of the Information Technology
Act, 2000, and under Section 29 read with 103 of the Trademark Act, 1999
and under Section 51 read with Sections 63, 63A and 64 of the Copyright
Act, 1957.
1.1) Record indicates that, Respondent No.1 in the Petition, who is
Respondent No.2 in the Application, has been duly served with the notice,
however, none appeared for him when called out for hearing. The
Respondent No.1/Respondent No.2 has filed an Affidavit-in-Reply dated 1 st
December, 2012 and dated 3rd October 2012, opposing the Petition and the
Application, respectively.
2) Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner, learned Counsel for the
Applicants and learned APP for the Respondent-State.
3) Perused entire record and the Affidavit-in-Reply filed by the
Respondent No.1/Respondent No.2. It show that, in the Petition, Rule was
issued and interim relief was granted on 17th October, 2012. In the
Application, Rule was issued and interim relief was granted on 3 rd December,
2012. Notice was waived for Respondent No.1/Respondent No.2 when the
Rule was issued in both the matters.
4) Facts giving rises to this Petition and Application are as under :
4.1) At the relevant time, the Petitioner was working as an Executive
Manoj 210-wp-3093-2012.doc
Vice President in M/s.Edelweiss Financial Services Limited, at Mumbai. The
Applicants are Directors of a Company named M/s.Percept Limited, at
Mumbai.
4.2) On 31st July 2012, Respondent No.1 in the Petition lodged a
report with Respondent No.2-N.M.Marg police station wherein he has stated
that, he has been serving as Head Legal with M/s.Edelweiss Financial
Services Limited, at Mumbai (' the Company', for short). On 22nd November,
2011 the Petitioner sent a letter to the Company for accepting his
resignation. By an email dated 12 th December, 2011, again the Petitioner
informed about his resignation. According to the said resignation, the tenure
of the Petitioner with the Company came to an end on 22 nd December, 2011,
at 18:00 hours.
4.3) It is stated that on 23rd December, 2011, English daily 'Economic
Times' published a news titled as "Edelweiss Asset Management Head Quits,
To Start Own Fund". In the said news it was stated that, for the last 7 years,
the Petitioner was working as the head of wholesale asset management (in
the Company). He would establish his own fund of Rs.500 Crores. On the
same day the said news was flashed in the web world. On 24 th December,
2011, the same news was published in various daily newspapers at various
places in India. On inquiry, it revealed that, the said news item was at the
behest of 'Press Trust of India', who had received it by an e-mail dated 23 rd
Manoj 210-wp-3093-2012.doc
December, 2011 of Vaibhav Singh, an employee of M/s.Percept Profile, with
an attachment i.e. press release of resignation of the Petitioner, having on its
top a forged registered logo of the Company " Edelweiss" with the slogan
thereunder 'Ideas Create, Values Protect' . Then the said news/press release
was published in the media as it is, as stated above. It is stated that the
Petitioner and the Applicants did not take prior permission of the Company
to publish that press release by using the said registered logo of the company
and its copy mark. However, the Petitioner and the Applicants in furtherance
of their common intention forged the letter head of the Company by forging
its registered logo and by cheating, prepared a false press release of the
resignation of the Petitioner to show that, the said press release was at the
behest of the Company and with intent to defame the Company, to
wrongfully gain for the Petitioner and to cause wrongful loss to the
Company. As a result, the impugned FIR came to be registered.
4.4) According to the Petitioner and the Applicants, no offence is
made out against them and they are implicated in the FIR falsely.
Submissions:
5) Learned counsel for the Petitioner and the Applicants has
submitted that, the news published in the daily 'Economic times', is not on
the letter head of the Company. Insofar as the press release with the
registered logo of the Company is concerned, it was merely an accident not
Manoj 210-wp-3093-2012.doc
intentional. Secondly, the said news item is not sufficient to constitute the
offences alleged in the F.I.R. Thus, the Petitioner and the Applicants are
innocent. However, they have been booked in the said crime. Hence,
continuation of the impugned F.I.R. would be abuse of process of law.
Therefore, said F.I.R. may be quashed.
6) Learned APP submitted that, looking at the text of the F.I.R.
coupled with the documents produced on record by the parties, there is
sufficient material to attract the said offences against the Petitioner and the
Applicants. In short, according to learned APP, there is prima facie case
against them. Hence, the Petition and the Application may be dismissed.
7) On careful scrutiny of the F.I.R. and the documents on record,
we noticed that, there is no material to understand as to how the Company
has been defamed. The fact of resignation by the Petitioner and its
acceptance by the Company by way of the relieving letter issued to the
Petitioner is not in controversy. Secondly, the subject press release simply
indicates the intention of the Petitioner that, he wants to start his own
finance business, which has nothing to do with the Company. Therefore,
according to us, it is very difficult to accept that, Section 501 of the Indian
Penal Code has any application to the facts of the present case.
8) Further, the subject news item indicates that, the services
rendered by the Petitioner were helpful for the successful business of the
Manoj 210-wp-3093-2012.doc
Company. The Company is not claiming that it was put to certain financial
loss due to some inefficient management and services by the Petitioner
during his said tenure. Except publication of the said news, the Petitioner
and the Applicants have not played any other role in the case. Therefore,
according to us, absolutely there is no element of cheating the Company by
preparing a false press release on the forged letter head of the Company
having its alleged forged logo on the top. As such, question of wrongful loss
to the Company and wrongful gain to the Petitioner, does not arise. Hence,
we conclude that, there is no prima facie case of offences under Sections
417, 419, 420, 465, 468, 469, 471 read with 120-B Indian Penal Code,
against the Petitioner and the Applicants.
9) There is no infringement, misuse or malicious use of the
logo/trademark of Edelweiss Financial Services Limited, therefore according
to us application of the offences under Section 29 read with 103 of the
Trademark Act, 1999 and under Section 51 read with Sections 63, 63A and
64 of the Copyright Act, 1957 is wholly unwarranted. Similarly, there is no
requisite mens rea to set the liability against the Petitioner and the
Applicants for the offences under Sections 66(A), 66(C) & 66(D) of the
Information Technology Act, 2000. As such, no prima facie case for these
offences is made out.
10) Thus, except for the fact that, the Petitioner resigned from the
Manoj 210-wp-3093-2012.doc
Company on 17th December, 2011, he was relieved on 22 nd December, 2011
and said news was published in the print and web world, no other overt act
of omission or commission can be attributed to the Petitioner and the
Applicants.
11) In view thereof, the registration of the impugned F.I.R. on the
report of Respondent No.1 is erroneous and hence continuation of the same
would be abuse of process of law. As a result, the said F.I.R. is liable to
quashed and is accordingly quashed and set aside.
12) Criminal Writ Petition No.3093 of 2012 and Criminal
Application No.956 of 2012 are allowed in the above terms. Rule is made
absolute in the Petition and also in the Application.
(SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.) (A. S. GADKARI, J.)
